No Falklands war political consequences

WI there had been a bigger row over the withdrawal of HMS Endurance in the early days of Thatcher. That might stop Argentina making the gamble they did.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Falkands war gave Thatcherism a huge boost.

Would the difference be big enough to change British politics fundamentally?


If Galteri had not launched the invasion how much longer wold the Argentine military have stayed in power? Would it have had consequences for the rest of Latin America?
 
If Galteri had not launched the invasion how much longer wold the Argentine military have stayed in power? Would it have had consequences for the rest of Latin America?

One year more at the most. The war was a mean to avoid the collapse of the Junta. It's failure ultimately sped things up but It wasn't its cause.

So you would probably have a military which isn't as desprestigied as it is in OTL Argentina.
Also, you won't have such a precedent of unity between Southamerican Nations, as most countries in South America supported our claims and sent help in different ways.

Maybe this could delay the Mercosur by 5 to 10 years.
 

AndyC

Donor
WI there had been a bigger row over the withdrawal of HMS Endurance in the early days of Thatcher. That might stop Argentina making the gamble they did.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Falkands war gave Thatcherism a huge boost.

Would the difference be big enough to change British politics fundamentally?

I doubt it. Opinion polls at the time had the Tories turning the corner before the invasion of the Falklands by the Argentinians - they were back to level pegging by March '82 (Con 34, Lab 34, All 30) and the economy was picking up strongly.

Labour still would have been led by Michael Foot, with the "longest suicide note in history" manifesto. I think the overall change would have been less of a landslide for the Tories and a few more seats for Labour - maybe like the 1987 result.

It could have led eventually to a hung Parliament after the 1992 election, though.
 
One thing you can be certain of is the Alliance wouldn't win. The Libtrolls to this day love to crow that it was them, not Labour, that truly lost out because of the Falklands, but the facts and political science show us that they faced far bigger problems at the ballot box - the biggest one being the unshakeable belief (that persists to this day) that they couldn't ever actually win.
 
If there is no Falkland invasion then I could see a bigger drawdown of the British forces during the 80's, leading to, as the wall falls, such a small British military that the SAS and a few squadrons of the RAF would be pretty much all we'd be able to contribute to GW1.
It could also lead to a much more accomodating approach by the post 90's Labour government to things like shared administration, consessions on any exploitable oil reserves etc.
If there's no invasion to point to, then there's no reason for the British to view the Island as anything more than a remote sheep farm and former coaling station.
 
Maggies popularity pre and post Falkands War

Maggie was one of the most unpopular Prime ministers in the uk pre the Falklands. In 1981 we had the riots in just about every city, unemployment was pushing through 3 million with the means of counting the unemployed changing nearly every month. For Labours part they had Michael Foot who whilst a very intelligent man was not leader material and viewed by the press as a bit of an unkempt tramp. The SDP with the deserted leading lights from the Labour party Williams Owen Jenkins et al were "The Emperors new clothes" of politics. Conspiracy theorists have gone as far as to suggest that the Falklands was orchestrated by the Tories by the removal of HMS Endurance. Not so. John Nott Defence had announced a Draw down of the surface fleet The Foreign office under Lord Carrington I suspect weren't even sure where the Falklands were. Had the Argies invaded 15 months later we wouldn't have had Vulcan for the Black Buck operations, Hermes (was to be sold to India), Invincible to go to Australia, HMS Intrepid was in mothballs and due to be scrapped and a Question lay over the other assault ship Fearless. The very future of the Marines was in doubt as was the Para's. The Falklands was a very difficult operation won in part by good luck, highly motivated and trained and led armed forces, critical support from the US for the replacement supply of war stock AIM 9L sidewinder, the use of Ascension Island airfield (which made it one of the busiest Runways in the world in April May 1982). Logistical support in the form of jet fuel at Ascension and availabe intel on Argentine threats and capabilities in the South Atlantic. The defining moment for Maggie was her determination to see it through. This exemplified her whole leadership style and allowed the Tories to push through many other political reforms in the following years against opposition from the Unions, Europe and the Liberals. It elevated Britain back onto the world stage and I would go as far as to say showed would be aggressors that Britain would fight. It was the Russians who called her "The Iron lady". In summary the biggest change in world politics of no Falklands war would have occured 8,000 miles away in the UK. We would have handed our soverenty over to Europe much faster. Our military saw a significant improvement in kit post 82 from the lessons learnt. Flame proof kit for sailors, Boots that didn't leak (as much) for the squaddie, water proofs to replace the poncho, the introduction of an automatic assault rifle and an increase in the size of the armed forces by way of additional 6 TA battalions and more helicopters. By the time of Gulf War 1 the junior officers and Junior and senior NCO's in the British army had all been through Brecon and Warminster and had been taught the necessary skills by those instructors who were in the Falklands. This undoubtable made the British contribution to GW1 are far more effective force than would otherwise have been the case
 
Undoubtedly Thatcher would have won a second term but it wouldn't have been with the emphatic landslide that she got in 1983. That would have big consequences for that term and for British politics to this day. With a smaller majority would Thatcher have felt strong enough to carry out the more radical aspects of her agenda such as the privatisations? Would she have felt emboldened enough to take on the miners? She had backed out of a confrontation with them in 1981 because her government was facing enough difficulties. Then again a more cautious Thatcher probably wouldn't have introduced the poll tax! ;)

There would also be major consequences for Labour. 1983 made people like Kinnock come around to the realisation that the political landscape had been changed totally and Labour needed to adapt to this. Without the trauma of that defeat perhaps Kinnock stays wedded to Old Labour for longer, without this and the defeat of the miners would he have felt that he needed to face down Militant, if of course he had become Leader?
 
If there is no Falkland invasion then I could see a bigger drawdown of the British forces during the 80's, leading to, as the wall falls, such a small British military that the SAS and a few squadrons of the RAF would be pretty much all we'd be able to contribute to GW1.
It could also lead to a much more accomodating approach by the post 90's Labour government to things like shared administration, consessions on any exploitable oil reserves etc.
If there's no invasion to point to, then there's no reason for the British to view the Island as anything more than a remote sheep farm and former coaling station.

Yes the UK military would have been reduced to Trident and some nuclear subs with the army mainly being a paramilitary force designed for use in Northern Ireland. The Invincible class carriers would have been sold and the surface fleet would be just a few ASW frigates with a Type 42 as 'fleet flagship'.

You could argue that it would spare Britain getting involved in wars in the gulf later.

Politically the Tories are re elected in 1983. They may even wait until 1984 to give the economic recovery more time to take effect. Thatcher may also have been more reluctant to take on the miners a s early as 1984. The SDP would have 4/5 extra seats and maybe Labour would be in a better position to win in 1992.
 
I doubt it. Opinion polls at the time had the Tories turning the corner before the invasion of the Falklands by the Argentinians - they were back to level pegging by March '82 (Con 34, Lab 34, All 30) and the economy was picking up strongly.

Was that general average of polls though or a single one? If the latter it could be an outlier.

Labour still would have been led by Michael Foot, with the "longest suicide note in history" manifesto. I think the overall change would have been less of a landslide for the Tories and a few more seats for Labour - maybe like the 1987 result.

Remember that that suicide note had this to say about the Falklands.

Falkland Islands

Mrs. Thatcher's policy of Fortress Falklands is imposing an intolerable burden both on the British people and on the inhabitants of the Falklands themselves. The war, which wiser policies could have avoided, has already cost us £1,000 million. On top of that the Conservative government plans to spend £600 million a year for the indefinite future on garrisoning the islands - £1½ million per year for every Falklands family.

With four British servicemen on the islands to every adult male Falklander, the traditional way of life of this rural community is being destroyed. Yet at the same time Mrs. Thatcher is allowing British firms to equip warships for the Argentine dictatorship and is lending money to General Bignone to spend on arms. A Labour government would not sell arms to any Argentine government which was hostile to Britain or denied civil rights and democratic freedoms to its own people. Labour believes that Britain must restore normal links between the Falklands and the Latin American mainland, and that the United Nations must be involved in finding a permanent settlement of the problem.

Now I see merit in a lot of things in that manifesto but this is ridiculous. Without the war this paragraph wouldn't have been put in and less people would have turned away from Labour.
 

AndyC

Donor
Was that general average of polls though or a single one? If the latter it could be an outlier.

It's from the Mori historical archive (linky here. Very useful resource).

The Tories had declined through 1981, and as the SDP came into existence, allied with the Liberals and started winning by-elections, so did Labour.

For context, from the Tories worst point in 1981 (end Sept):

Code:
[FONT=Courier New]DATE       Con    Lab   Lib+SDP[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]28 Sept 81: 28     42     28[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]23-27 Oct : 27     31     40[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]End Nov:    27     27     44[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]Mid Dec:    27     29     43[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]End Jan 82: 29     30     40[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]Feb:        30     33     34[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]March:      34     34     30[/FONT]
Then the invasion occurred on 2nd April. It does look as though the SDP/Liberal flash diminished fairly rapidly and initially took support from Labour, before shedding it more to the Tories. As the economic recovery took hold (inflation was down from its peak of 22% in 1980 to below 10%), their recovery should have continued.

The Falklands Effect can be seen as a big bulge upwards in mid 1982 (peaking at a 27% Tory lead as victory was declared), but by winter 1982, the Tory lead was back to single figures.
 
It's from the Mori historical archive (linky here. Very useful resource).

The Tories had declined through 1981, and as the SDP came into existence, allied with the Liberals and started winning by-elections, so did Labour.

For context, from the Tories worst point in 1981 (end Sept):

Code:
[FONT=Courier New]DATE       Con    Lab   Lib+SDP[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]28 Sept 81: 28     42     28[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]23-27 Oct : 27     31     40[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]End Nov:    27     27     44[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]Mid Dec:    27     29     43[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]End Jan 82: 29     30     40[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]Feb:        30     33     34[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New]March:      34     34     30[/FONT]
Then the invasion occurred on 2nd April. It does look as though the SDP/Liberal flash diminished fairly rapidly and initially took support from Labour, before shedding it more to the Tories. As the economic recovery took hold (inflation was down from its peak of 22% in 1980 to below 10%), their recovery should have continued.

The Falklands Effect can be seen as a big bulge upwards in mid 1982 (peaking at a 27% Tory lead as victory was declared), but by winter 1982, the Tory lead was back to single figures.

It hadn't realised the comeback was that stark, thanks for the info. Although the question is by how much the Tories could have came back after that I doubt they would have repeated 1983, they may have even lost seats.
 

AndyC

Donor
It hadn't realised the comeback was that stark, thanks for the info. Although the question is by how much the Tories could have came back after that I doubt they would have repeated 1983, they may have even lost seats.

It's always going to have an element of guessing, but without the Falklands and with the economic recovery continuing (inflation dropping down to 4% by the election, the big spike in unemployment appearing to tail off), I'd expect the recovery to continue. From October 1982 to early Feb 1983, the Tory lead seems to have stabilised at around 8-9%, which isn't a vast uptickfrom the level-pegging of March 1982 (considering the recovery they'd had from October 1981 and the amazing spring/summer leads). There seems to have been another boost in February 1983 which was far more long-lasting, putting the lead into the mid-teens where it stayed apart from a handful of outliers until polling day.

Just from looking at the polling figures, I would have said the Tory popularity trends for Maggie's first term were:

1 - Unpopularity through 1980 to late 1981.
2 - Recovery from late 1981.
3 - Big but temporary boost spring/summer 1982
4 - Stability late 1982-early 1983
5 - Sustained boost from early 1983.

I'd see the Falklands as being the item 3, but the pivotal elements of the win in 1983 were 2,4 and 5 - and I'd (personally) guess that the economic recovery tied with Labour's split and left-lurch were the most fundamental components.

It's all guesswork, but I'd say that without the Falklands, you could shift the Tory score down by 0-2, The Labour score up by 0-2 and the Alliance score around by +/-2 ... but that's about it, really. (An ATL where the UK lost the Falklands war or didn't intervene at all would have see a far larger effect, in my opinion). Best (personal) guess in absence of Falklands and everything else unfolding as it did:

Con 380-397
Lab: 209-230
Alliance: 20-25

(somewhere between the 1983 and 1987 results would be my feeling)
 
I'd see the Falklands as being the item 3, but the pivotal elements of the win in 1983 were 2,4 and 5 - and I'd (personally) guess that the economic recovery tied with Labour's split and left-lurch were the most fundamental components.

Well surely 4 is reliant on 3? Without 3 that's just a sustained tie more or less, the boost in number 5 will probably see the Conservatives home but I can't see the landslide without that large boost form the Falklands. I'd predict a result similar to 1992, the Conservatives take losses but hold on.
 
Well surely 4 is reliant on 3? Without 3 that's just a sustained tie more or less, the boost in number 5 will probably see the Conservatives home but I can't see the landslide without that large boost form the Falklands. I'd predict a result similar to 1992, the Conservatives take losses but hold on.

The Red

I would agree. It could be that a temporary recovery may have helped them but the Falkland war had a lasting impact, both in terms of the propaganda the Tories made out of it and the lift in general moral in the country as a result. The fact that the country had shown it could do something successfully, despite the stance of the government;), is a big boost to well-feeling.

It might be that the Tories would have stayed in power, especially with the split between the opposition vote. However, even with our faulty electoral system it would have been weakened and the basic unpopularity of the government would have remained. Especially if she had started accelerating the flogging off of assets as she did OTL. Plus could we be sure Scargill would have destroyed the miners for her as he did OTL?

It might be that her policies could have prompted a stronger reaction in the following election and if Labour continued to self-destruct reform might have been possible. [Probably being idealistic here but that's me].

Steve
 
I have a feeling that she would have won with a smaller majority than OTL, but larger than OTL 1987 say about 120-130ish seats.
The Alliance could have overtaken Labour into 2nd place in terms of the vote, but I dobut it.
 
It might be that the Tories would have stayed in power, especially with the split between the opposition vote. However, even with our faulty electoral system it would have been weakened and the basic unpopularity of the government would have remained. Especially if she had started accelerating the flogging off of assets as she did OTL. Plus could we be sure Scargill would have destroyed the miners for her as he did OTL?

I doubt she would have been as radical without that massive majority. Having her majority reduced to around 20 seats would probably have shaken her confidence and lead to her making less large reforms and more minor ones, if you'll pardon the pun.

It might be that her policies could have prompted a stronger reaction in the following election and if Labour continued to self-destruct reform might have been possible. [Probably being idealistic here but that's me].

Presuming Foot resigns (it wasn't a disaster but he's getting on and he failed to defeat an unpopular Government) and Kinnock still wins it's possible you could see a hung parliament in 1987, having more right wing figures in his group would probably have helped his fight against Militant and a larger Labour group could have inspired people annoyed with the Government that Labour could actually win.
 

AndyC

Donor
Well surely 4 is reliant on 3? Without 3 that's just a sustained tie more or less, the boost in number 5 will probably see the Conservatives home but I can't see the landslide without that large boost form the Falklands. I'd predict a result similar to 1992, the Conservatives take losses but hold on.

But stability where? There was a consistent and sustained improvement in the Tory position from Oct 81 to Mar 82 - and the contributing factors were simply continuing. In the absence of the Falklands War, the spring/summer boost wouldn't have happened, but the economic recovery would still have continued. The leftward positioning of Labour wouldn't have changed.

I'd hazard a guess that in the absence of the Falklands, the Tory lead would have appeared in May, and built through low single figures through summer to about a 5-8% lead by winter - because the factors that were causing the huge unpopularity through 1980/1981 (primarily high inflation and crippled GDP, plus surging unemployment) were falling away, and Thatcher was getting the credit for not U-turning.

NB - the "split in the opposition vote" may well have hindered her - the BES found that the Alliance voters significantly split more pro-Con than pro-Lab, so the swing to the Conservatives would have been higher in the absence of any third party.
 
NB - the "split in the opposition vote" may well have hindered her - the BES found that the Alliance voters significantly split more pro-Con than pro-Lab, so the swing to the Conservatives would have been higher in the absence of any third party.

AndyC

Possibly, or possibly made her government possible. Don't forget that I think she only once exceeded 40% of the vote and a couple of times was down to about 35-37%. If there hadn't been a 3rd party it would have depended on what the 2nd party was but if Labour had been more moderate and no alliance, or Labour had collapsed then Thatcher would have got hammered.

Steve
 

AndyC

Donor
AndyC

Possibly, or possibly made her government possible. Don't forget that I think she only once exceeded 40% of the vote and a couple of times was down to about 35-37%. If there hadn't been a 3rd party it would have depended on what the 2nd party was but if Labour had been more moderate and no alliance, or Labour had collapsed then Thatcher would have got hammered.

Steve

Nah - her vote shares were:

1979: 43.9% (7% lead over Lab)
1983: 42.4% (14.8% lead over Lab)
1987: 42.2% (11.4% lead over Lab)

I agree if Labour had collapsed in favour of the Alliance, or Labour had moved to an SDP ("New Labour") kind of direction, things could have been very different. The argument that the Alliance split the Labour vote is flawed - but the argument that Labour split the Alliance vote is actually a very valid way of looking at it.

I think that to get a Tory loss in 1983, you need either an economic collapse that doesn't recover, or a PoD in the Labour Party a decade or so earlier. IIRC, Wilson spent a lot of his time trying to smooth down the fissiparous wings in the Labour Party. Maybe a PoD where "In Place of Strife" gets accepted in 1969, and the unions don't run riot in the seventies, being reined in by the Labour Party. You could have the most lefty members of the Labour Party leaving in a fit of pique and forming a Socialist Workers Party. The rump Labour Party would get the moderate vote (and the reward for taming the unions).

It might even remove the first Thatcher victory in 1979. However, if the Labour fissures, Winter of Discontent, economic recovery and Labour left-lurch (pluss fission of the SDP) occurs, I think a Tory victory in 1983 is too late to prevent.
 
AndyC is absolutely right ITT. The idea that Labour (or the Alliance, for that matter) could have won without the Falklands is just pop-nonsense/left-wing wishful thinking. Labour under Foot was in the worst state of any political party in modern times, with a manifesto written by Tony Benn, and it was never going to be able to offer itself as a serious alternative government unless the Tories drastically foul up. As noted, the economy was already improving before the war, as were the Tories' poll numbers.
 
Top